> You need look no further than the USA's gaping trade deficits.

A “trade deficit” is just another name for a capital inflow surplus.

If you want a smaller trade deficit, reduce the degree to which you systematically favor capital.

Of course, what policymakers usually justify based on a trade deficit is increased support for domestically headquartered firms and other supports for capital invested in the country, which results in more net foreign investment and higher trade deficit, which is used to support more capital-serving policy, which results in more capital inflows, etc.

You've said nothing wrong, and at the same time I'm not sure how that contradicts my point. A large trade deficit does indicate that one country's protectionism outweighs the other (i.e. larger tariffs result in a deficit).

There is no trade deficit with Canada.

I believe you're referring to the USA's "aggregate sales surplus," which measures both direct trade and sales of multinational companies--a headline making rounds on the news this past week.

These numbers include items made in China, by Chinese jobs, using Chinese components, under a US company name. It uses total sales, and not net revenue, which would change the picture by a great deal.

Lol people won't actually address your point they just downvote your post. Hn is very classy when people bring up politics

No, we just don't want to waste our time arguing with someone who very clearly is not doing so in good faith.

> very clearly is not doing so in good faith.

I'm confused. What do you mean by that?

There is no trade deficit with Canada. At all. Claiming there is one, in the face of all facts to the contrary, is not having a discussion in good faith.

So instead of enlightening me with these facts, you accuse me of acting in bad faith? I was under the impression that there was a trade deficit with Canada given the evidence I have found: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html .

jeromegv said there was no trade deficit with Canada, so I assumed good faith and responded to him/her under the pretense that they were referring to the "aggregate sales surplus" figure that has been in the news recently.

Can you please help me understand how I have ignored facts and acted in bad faith? I would like to fix this problem, but I do not understand where to begin.

My understanding is that your reference doesn't include services. I find this: https://www.usitc.gov/publications/industry_econ_analysis_33... and a synthesis by the WP: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/11/w...

It seems that US and Canada trade is globally balanced.

You're right. It looks like US - Canada services trade surplus makes up for the goods deficit.

No, not in the least. But persons who can't even be counted on to not make up their own facts are clearly not acting in good faith.

There was a cumulative $370 billion trade deficit going back to 2007, and a nearly $800 billion trade deficit back to year 2000. There has been a trade deficit with Canada every year the past 30+ years, including so far in 2018. [1]

How would Canada like to run a $800 billion trade deficit with the US over the next 17 years? You know, just to make things fair over time. Didn't think so.

On the upside, the trade deficit has narrowed from a common $30 billion five years ago, to more like $10 to $15 billion. That's a pretty happy result if you're the US, given it's a consumption engine (lower domestic savings at the median, higher consumption rate, which pushes up demand for imports in most cases).

[1] https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html

Funnily enough, the US numbers show a trade deficit with Canada, and the Canadian numbers show a trade deficit with the US. Who knew - it turns out that how you compute these things gives you the ability to wiggle a bit.

What is generally accepted though, is that internationally speaking the US and Canada are one of the most balanced know of, over long periods, and for major trading partners.

Pretending otherwise is just serving partisan politics at this point.

It doesn't count services. I did find a useful link when I wanted to respond to another comment : https://www.usitc.gov/publications/industry_econ_analysis_33...

Maybe that's happening because the US isn't competitive enough?

Not likely: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Competitiveness_Repor...

It's happening because the US is very competitive as a place to invest capital. Trade deficit can be visualized as people in the US selling capital and using the proceeds to buy goods; the reality is more complex and has more intermediate steps, but that's the net effect.